Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > I think I could support using the presence of the BOM as a fall-back > indicator of encoding in absence of any other declaration.
What is the difference the fall-back and <<set client encoding to UTF-8 if BOM found>> ? I read this discussion that we cannot accept any automatic encoding detections (properly speaking, detection is ok, but automatic assignment is not). We should not have any fall-back mechanism, no? > Also, when the proposed patch to set the encoding from the locale > appears, we need to make this logic more precise. Encoding-from-locale feature will be useful, but the patch does *not* set any encodings. The reason is same as above. > Also, I'm not sure if we need this logic only when we send a query. It > might be better to do this in the lexer when we find a non-ASCII > character and we don't have a client encoding != SQL_ASCII set yet. Absolutely, but is it an indepedent issue from BOM? Multi-byte scripts without encoding are always dangerous whether BOM is present or not. I'd say we can always throw an error when we find queries that contain multi-byte characters if no prior encoding declaration. Regards, --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
